ThinkProgress Logo

Education

Teacher Layoffs And Funding Inequity Are A One-Two Punch To Low-Income Students

Our guest blogger is Theodora Chang, Education Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Over the weekend, thousands of students from New York to California learned that they might lose their teachers to budget-related layoffs. Teachers in Providence, Rhode Island, have also been put on notice. These layoffs are predicted to hit students in high-poverty schools the hardest — an additional wallop on top of already existing resource inequities.

What few policymakers realize is that funding issues are actually hitting low-income kids twice — once through district resource allocations, and then again when they lose their teachers to layoffs. School districts have long turned a blind eye to funding inequities among their schools, and the federal government has glossed over the issue.

Under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, districts must provide resources and educational opportunities to schools receiving Title I funds that are “comparable” to those provided in non-Title I schools. However, there are a couple of loopholes that allow districts to sidestep this crucial responsibility.

One of the key issues with the current law is that it allows districts to show equity by using non-financial measures instead of actual dollars. For example, a school that is receiving Title I dollars is able to say that it is providing its students an education comparable to that provided in a nearby non-Title I school simply because they have the same ratio of instructional staff to students. Demonstrating equity in number of instructional staff does not translate to equity in quality of instruction, since this is largely independent of the level of resources available, and it certainly does not guarantee Title I schools a fair share of state and local resources.

The reason is that more experienced teachers tend to transfer to low-poverty schools, and inexperienced — therefore inexpensive — teachers are over-represented in high-poverty schools. These schools need their fair share of resources to support these teachers using strategies such as high-quality induction and coaching, or selectively lowering class-sizes for them. However, as the GAO shows in a new report released yesterday, the vast majority of districts are currently meeting Title I comparability requirements using these ratios instead of dollars. Read more

Economy

House Republicans Crow Triumphantly After Bernanke Confirms Their Spending Cuts Will Cause Job Loss

Recently, a slew of economic analysts have put forward estimates regarding the number of jobs that would be lost if the spending cuts approved by House Republicans were actually implemented. Economists at Goldman Sachs estimated that the GOP’s proposed cuts would lower GDP growth by two percentage points, while Moody’s Analytics estimated that the cuts would cause the loss of 700,000 jobs. The Economic Policy Institute pegged the job loss at closer to one million.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress today and was asked about these analyses. He said that, in his opinion, the effect of the cuts would not cause quite as much job loss as Moody’s or Goldman estimated. House Republicans are crowing triumphantly that this vindicates their proposed cuts. “Senate Democrats should find new talking points if they’re going to continue to stand in the way of House Republican efforts to eliminate barriers to job creation through much needed spending reductions,” said House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

But the GOP is neglecting to mention that Bernanke actually agreed with the analyses showing that the House GOP plan would cause job loss. He just quibbled over how much:

BERNANKE: Obviously [the cuts] would be contractionary to some extent, but our analysis doesn’t give a number that high. [...]

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): What is your impact?

BERNANKE: Several tenths, on GDP. [...]

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Those cuts would create job loss. I don’t mean overall job loss, macro, but those cuts could. Do you agree with that?

BERNANKE: The cuts would presumably lower overall demand in the economy and would have some effect on growth and employment.

SCHUMER: Good, so the answer is yes?

BERNANKE: Yes.

Watch it:

So what we’re talking about here is not whether the GOP’s cuts will cause job loss, but how much job loss they will cause. Bernanke, Goldman Sachs, Moody’s, and EPI are all united in saying that loss will occur; they just differ on the final number. As Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum put it, “Maybe it’s a million jobs, maybe it’s half a million jobs. Maybe it will cost a point of GDP, maybe it will cost half a point of GDP. But considering that the economy is still sluggish and unemployment is extremely high, why are we considering budget cuts that will have any negative effect on jobs and growth?”

The House GOP actually cheering when yet another economist says that their cuts will increase unemployment continues the very cavalier attitude Republicans have had regarding this point. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) replied “so be it” to those pointing out that his party will increase unemployment, while Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) said that GOP lawmakers at all levels of government should carry out spending cuts “even if they end up seriously costing a lot of jobs right now.”

Update

The Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Economic Policy Institute released a letter today — signed by 320 economists — which stated that “responsible governance demands that we neither damage the recovery today nor forsake America’s economic future by cutting critical investments.”

Climate Progress

Conservatives oppose adaptation, too

Sen. John Barrasso continued his campaign yesterday to stop the Obama administration from incorporating climate change into federal plans and policies, taking aim at an interagency report released in October that proposed ways for the federal government to respond to increased frequency of severe weather events and other effects of global warming….

Barrasso said that even the climate change adaptation efforts recommended in the report “will kill jobs, weaken our energy security and decrease economic growth.”

Right-wing to Americans:  No mitigation, no clean energy deployment, no clean energy R&D, no adaptation.  In short, you are on your own!

Bizarrely, the honest brokers and breakthrough bunch actually believe they can spend their time attacking climate science and climate scientists and cap-and-trade and aggressive clean energy deployment in order to ingratiate themselves into partnership with the right-wing, in the hopes of some sort of trickle-down, post-partisan climate policy.

But for conservatives, if you’re in the pocket of Big Oil and the corporate polluters, you’re going to demand cuts — not increases — in R&D for the clean energy competition, as you have for decades (see NY Times on “The dirty energy party”: “The Republican agenda is breathtakingly negative”).

And if you don’t believe in climate change, why on Eaarth would you spend a nickel adapting to it?  Here’s more from the E&E Daily story, “Barrasso intensifies efforts to stop Obama admin’s focus on adaptation” (subs. req’d), which makes that painfully clear:

Read more

Politics

REPORT: How Koch Industries Makes Billions Corrupting Government And Polluting For Free (Part 2)

In an opinion piece published today responding to his critics, Koch Industries CEO Charles Koch promised to continue to finance anti-government, right-wing front groups. Charles writes that the “purpose of business is to efficiently convert resources into products and services that make people’s lives better.” But when it comes to Koch’s carcinogenic pollution and carbon emissions, the purpose of Koch’s political giving is to avoid any financial responsibility — no matter who gets hurt. Koch Industries has cornered the market in monetizing some of the most dirty industrial businesses. Koch imports oil from the Middle East, refines high-carbon Canadian crude, maintains coal-burning plants, owns one of the largest oil pipeline networks in America, runs environmentally hazardous lumber mills, produces toxic chemicals, and manufacturers fertilizer. The University of Masschusetts Amherst has scored Koch as among the top ten worst air polluters for its carcinogenic chemicals.

Much of the entire Koch political machine is geared towards ensuring that Koch Industries never has to compensate the people and ecosystems damaged by Koch Industries pollution. Koch front groups — from Tea Party groups to think tanks — have diligently promoted Koch Industries’ bottom line by denying global warming, fighting regulations on Koch’s cancer-causing chemicals, and snuffing out investigations into Koch’s environmental crimes:

In 1990, as both Republicans and Democrats proposed a cap and trade system to address acid rain, Koch financed a front group called “Concerned Citizens for the Environment” to battle proposed regulations. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that the group “has no citizen membership of its own,” but produced studies arguing that acid rain was a myth and that deregulation would benefit the environment. Koch refineries and factories, top emitters of acid rain-causing toxins, were impacted by the successful cap and trade system. A front group founded by David Koch, Citizens for a Sound Economy (which later changed its name to Americans for Prosperity), also battled regulations designed to combat acid rain, labeling the problem a “myth.”

– Koch Industries vastly expanded its political giving in reaction to revelations that the company had systematically stolen oil from Native American reservations and federal lands. Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), a personal friend of the Koch brothers and top recipient of Koch money, sponsored legislation to suppress an investigation into the oil thefts. Over 50 Koch Industries employees later testified that indeed the “Koch Method” of manipulating data to surreptitiously take Native American oil resulted in an estimated 300 million gallons of oil the company received for free. Koch later settled for $25 million in penalties.

– Between 1995 and 1997 there were over 300 reported oil spills at pipelines owned and operated by Koch, which caused an estimated three million gallons of oil into lakes and streams in six states. David Koch helped Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) raise over $150,000 for his campaign, and was rewarded with Dole-sponsored legislation that would have helped Koch Industries avoid serious penalties for the oil spills. On January 13, 2000, the government settled that case for $35 million in fines.

– In 1997, the EPA proposed strengthening rules governing air pollution, regulating particles from coal plants and industrial plants which cause tens of thousands of premature deaths a year. Again, because Koch’s factories were impacted by the regulations, Koch-funded front groups sprung into action. Koch’s Citizens for a Sound Economy front group ran ads claiming (Koch Industries created) particle pollution isn’t harmful. One ad featured a ”pediatrician” who says increased rates of asthma are not caused by the toxic particles, but rather by “dust mites, stuff like that.” Another ad from CSE claimed the EPA regulations would ban fireworks and backyard grills. ”Imagine that,” the ad stated, ”a new government regulation that takes away our freedom to, huh, celebrate our freedom.”

– Koch funneled large amounts of donations into electing George Bush in 2000 (even sending Koch-linked lobbyists to help disrupt the Florida recount). At the time, Koch Industries faced a 97-count federal indictment charging it with concealing illegal releases of 91 metric tons of benzene, known to cause leukemia, from its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. When Bush took office, his Justice Department dropped 88 of the charges and settled the case for a small amount of money.

– As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has reported, Koch Industries emits over 300 million tons of greenhouse gases a year. That is why, as a Greenpeace study has found, Koch Industries has pumped about $50 million into dozens of front groups denying the existence of climate change. To block EPA regulations of Koch’s carbon pollution, Koch fronts, like Americans for Prosperity, the Hot Air Tour, and the Regulation Reality Tour, have expanded their lobbying to children.

– Investigations by the Los Angeles Times and the Wonk Room have found that the House Republican push to neuter the EPA is largely coordinated by Koch lobbyists. Koch front groups helped elect the new Republican Congress, and have closely worked with the new Republican chair of the Energy and Commerce committee, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI). Koch allies in Congress have passed amendments to gut the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, enforce the Clean Air Act, and even monitor other air and water pollutants. They also cut funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

– One Koch front, the “No Climate Tax Pledge,” has successfully manipulated the Republican primary process by demanding that Republicans sign a pledge against supporting clean energy solutions. This pernicious political ploy, along with millions in Koch campaign donations, has resulted in the majority of the Republican caucus now doubting the science underpinning climate change.

After a lobbying campaign waged by Koch fronts Americans for Prosperity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, and others to stop federal action on climate change, Koch fronts have worked to decimate state-level efforts to curb carbon emissions. As ThinkProgress first reported, Koch fronts were at the forefront of an effort last year to repeal California’s landmark clean energy law. Currently, Koch fronts, including the State Policy Network and the American Legislative Exchange Council, are working to revoke the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in New England.

– Koch Industries is one of the largest producers of formaldehyde, a chemical that “several major scientific studies have concluded” causes cancer in human beings. Koch’s conservative front groups have battled proposed regulations on formaldehyde, and David Koch used his position on the National Institutes of Health to try to stop the EPA from classifying it as a “known carcinogen” in humans.

Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) demand that he be allowed to sell off Wisconsin’s state owned power plants with no-bid contracts has fueled suspicion that Koch Industries might take advantage of the deal, especially given Koch’s support for the Walker campaign and his current power grab. But the more dangerous Koch Industries kickback from Walker is likely to be from his administration’s approach to environmental regulations. Koch owns several Georgia Pacific plants along the Fox River near Green Bay. These plants are notorious for dumping thousands of pounds of toxic waste into the river, so it is discouraging that Walker’s administration has indicated that it will rollback environmental safeguards. If Walker allows Koch to pollute Wisconsin’s waterways, he is risking the lives and health of Wisconsin’s people.

In his book, the Science of Success, Charles pays tribute to libertarian scholar F.A. Hayek as one his role models. But Hayek famously wrote that pollution should be regulated not only for the “owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage,” but for society at large.

As one of the leading sources of carcinogenic chemicals and greenhouse gases, Koch’s financing of anti-regulation front groups is a back-door lobbying attempt to avoid having to pay for Koch Industries’ pollution. Refusing to pay for pollution is the core of the Koch business, and allows the company to make billions in illegitimate profits. Moreover, a business refusing to pay for its own pollution violates true libertarian principles.

Climate Progress

Emulating Palin, Bachmann Pushes Her Own Bridge To Nowhere

By Tom Kenworthy, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) likes to portray herself as a small government conservative and ferocious opponent of wasteful federal spending. Earlier this year, she outlined her proposal to cut the federal budget by an estimated $423 billion by, among other things, eliminating the Department of Education, ending federal job training programs, privatizing the Federal Aviation Administration, cutting veterans’ disability payments, and eliminating all congressional earmarks. In a recent speech to South Carolina Republicans, she warned that President Obama would lead the nation to a $21 trillion debt. “We are talking Greece territory in the greatest country in the world. We are talking Greece,” she said.

But when it comes to spending $700 million on a bridge in her home state — and trampling on the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in the process –- Bachmann is an earmark-loving big-spender.

Today, Bachmann introduced legislation that would clear the way for building a proposed four-lane highway bridge over the St. Croix River that divides Minnesota and Wisconsin. The bridge would cross a section of the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway that is part of the wild and scenic rivers system. The bill would overrule a finding last October by the National Park Service that the bridge cannot be built because it would “fundamentally change the scenic qualities that existed when the St. Croix was designated a national wild and scenic river in 1972.”

In a recent letter to the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) said she supported an “appropriately scaled and designed bridge” but the proposed boondoggle is “fiscally irresponsible, environmentally damaging and will create a transportation mess for communities along Minnesota Highway 35 in the congressional district I represent.”

The conservation group American Rivers named the St. Croix one of the nation’s most endangered rivers in 2009, and denounced Bachmann’s legislation. Rebecca Wodder, the group’s president, said Bachmann’s earmark would mean construction of an expensive and “massive freeway,” that would “irreversibly damage the beauty of the Lower St. Croix.” By deeming the bridge consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers act, the legislation would set a dangerous precedent, American Rivers said.

Yglesias

Endgame

The problem is you:

— Nancy Pelosi’s against styrofoam cups, so conservatives decide to love them.

— Scott Walker’s plummeting poll numbers.

— The voters want small class sizes.

— Fetus scheduled to testify at Ohio legislative hearing.

“Indians and Chinese, by contrast, have drunk their own Kool Aid.”.

— We need market pricing of helium (bigger deal than it sounds).

For Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, Liz Phair “Divorce Song”.

Health

Olympia Snowe Co-Sponsors Bill To Repeal Employer Responsibility Provision She Crafted

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) — who is up for re-election in 2012 — has issued a press release announcing that she is co-sponsoring an amendment “to repeal the employer mandate imposed by the new health reform law”:

U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) cosponsored legislation today to repeal the employer mandate imposed by the new health reform law. Senator Snowe, who opposes this mandate requiring employers to offer health insurance to their employees, filed an amendment during Senate consideration of the health care legislation to strike the provision altogether. Additionally, Senator Snowe is a cosponsor of legislation to fully repeal the health care law.

From the beginning, I strongly opposed this mandate, which will require small businesses with more than 50 workers to offer health insurance as a workplace benefit – or be subject to a fine of up to $2,000 penalty per employee. Worse still, the employer mandate captures part-time workers and seasonal workers who are employed for more than 120 days in determining whether a firm will be subject to the mandate.

The “mandate” Snowe is referring to is actually a “free rider” compromise provision that she helped broker as a member of the so-called ‘Gang of 6.’ Unlike the pay or play employer requirement that was part of earlier drafts of the law it doesn’t “require small businesses with more than 50 workers” to offer coverage. In fact that’s why Snowe eventually voted for the measure in the Senate Finance Committee.

As the National Journal reported on July 28, 2009, Snowe “emerged from bipartisan talks Monday confirming the employer mandate and, as expected, a public option would not make the final bill.” “We still have various options on the table, but we obviously are providing incentives in that regard,” Snowe said. “We don’t mandate employer coverage.” What the Finance Committee offered instead was a provision that did not require employers to provide insurance. However, by 2014, businesses with more than 50 employees that choose not to offer coverage, but have at least one full- time employee who receives a federal tax credit through an exchange, must compensate the government.

Progressives vehemently opposed the measure. As the Washington Post’s Steve Pearlstein explained at the time, “the provision would have the perverse effect of encouraging employers to fire, or not to hire, low-wage workers with children or spouses who are unemployed.” “Republican Olympia Snowe is said to be particularly enamored of this idea. I’d bet a two-pound lobster and bowl of Maine’s best chowder that she can’t find a labor economist back home who thinks this is a good policy,” he added. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) unsuccessfully offered an amendment to replace the free-rider provision with an employer mandate and the Snowe-crafted provision made its way into section 1513 of the Affordable Care Act.

Justice

Why We Doubt Clarence Thomas

At an event sponsored by the right-wing Federalist Society, Justice Clarence Thomas lashed out at his many critics — including ThinkProgress — claiming that we are attacking him as part of some nefarious plot to undermine the Supreme Court as an institution:

He also lashed out at his critics, without naming them, asserting they “seem bent on undermining” the High Court as an institution. Such criticism, Thomas warned, could erode the ability of American citizens to fend off threats to their way of life.

“You all are going to be, unfortunately, the recipients of the fallout from that – that there’s going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties,” he said, according to a partial recording of the speech provided to POLITICO by someone who was at the meeting.

Listen:

As the news outlet which originally broke the story that Justice Thomas unethically attended a Koch-sponsored political fundraiser, ThinkProgress is honored by Thomas’ suggestion that we have become so powerful that we are capable of undermining an entire branch of the federal government. Yet, if Thomas is really concerned that the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is being undermined, he should direct his criticism far closer to home:

So the truth is that ThinkProgress and other Thomas doubters hardly deserve the credit he gives us for undermining the Court’s credibility. Justice Thomas is inflicting far greater wounds on the Court’s legitimacy than any of his critics could ever cause.

 

Yglesias

The Social Conservatism Of The Damned

This is apropos of not much more than reader mail, but when examining social conservative hostility to gay and lesbian equality I think it’s critical to highlight how lazy it is. Social conservatism places a number of stringent demands on people’s sexual behavior. It tells them to avoid premarital sex, it tells them to avoid infidelity to their spouse, it tells them to avoid divorce. This is hard stuff. Some people live up to it. But most don’t. It’s a rigorous moral code by whose light many people are failing, and the vast majority of non-failures will nonetheless struggle mightily with it.

By contrast, “don’t make out with another dude” is really easy for most dudes. It’s very hard for some, of course, but most people aren’t gay and thus have absolutely no difficulty adhering to moral injunctions against gayness. A political movement that ran around talking about the sanctity of marriage and how divorce should be illegal and divorced people should be disgraced and run out of public life would have trouble catching fire. But almost everyone can stand up for “traditional morality” on the cheap by heaping scorn on a relatively small minority.

Security

Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge Tells Critics Of Immigration Reform To ‘Get Over It’

Today, current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Janet Napolitano, along with former DHS Secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, participated in a panel discussion moderated by NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell to celebrate the eighth anniversary of DHS. During the conversation, Ridge made the case that those who are blocking immigration reform simply “need to get over it” and come up with a solution:

I do hope that some time in the future we do end up looking at our immigration policy generally. It’s great to talk about defense we do, enforcement we do. At the end of the day, the demographics in the United States suggests that we will need additional labor going back and forth across the border in a lawful way. [...]

At some point in time I just hope that Congress accepts the responsibility and I can say this because I was there for twelve years and voted for “amnesty” under Ronald Reagan. At some you’ve got to say to yourself, ‘We’re not sending 12 million people home. Let’s get over it…So let’s just figure out a way to legitimize their status, create a new system, and I think that will add more to border security than any number of fences we can put across the border.

Watch it:

Ridge also told Americans not to be “arrogant” and just assume that everyone who emigrates to the U.S. wants to become an American citizen. “A lot of them would just love to come up here, work lawfully, and go home,” stated Ridge. While that may be true for a significant portion of the undocumented population, many undocumented immigrants have built families and established roots in the country.

Ridge’s successor, Michael Chertoff, echoed Ridge’s sentiments, saying that “we’re going to have to come up with a solution that takes into account not only the need for enforcement, but to deal with the immigration system overall comprehensively.” Chertoff also noted that “most people who come across the border are not coming to do harm to the U.S., they’re coming across the border for jobs that either Americans don’t want to work or the wage isn’t attractive.”

Ridge also lamented that “sometimes there has been hyperbole associated with the language and a general feeling that if you’re a Muslim you’ve been condemned.” He warned politicians to be “careful about the language we use to describe the jihadists and extremists.”

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up